LACEY – The local school district received promises of a lifeline with newly passed legislation. After facing significant budget cuts due to reduced state aid, the Governor signed two bills offering both financial relief and difficult choices for the district.
Many local districts lost millions in funding due to a change in the way the state gives out aid. The two new bills offer a two-pronged approach to address school funding shortfalls.
The first bill (A-4161) establishes a Stabilized School Budget Aid Grant Program within the Department of Education. This program allocates grants to qualifying districts experiencing state aid reductions. The grants would equal 45% of their lost state aid for the 2024-2025 school year, with a total of $44.7 million allocated to support the program.
Second, the legislation provides flexibility for affected districts by allowing them to raise property taxes above the current 2 percent cap. This increase can be as high as 9.9 percent, offering some relief to offset the state aid cuts.
“It’s important that we emphasize up to 9.9 percent,” said Dr. Vanessa Pereira, Superintendent of Schools. “And even though it is going to restore some monies to us, it’s not entirely going to cover the deficit, unfortunately.”
Pereira has maintained that a “funding problem” and not a “spending problem” accounts for the school district’s budget shortfall of $6.9 million.
The second piece of legislation (A-4059) authorizes the Commissioner of Education to permit certain school districts experiencing a reduction in state aid to submit budgets no later than five days following the enactment of the FY2025 appropriations act. A school district would have until the state budget is finalized before they finish their own budget. The state fiscal year is from July 1 through June 30, so this means it would be the end of June.
The road to financial relief has included advocacy efforts of the Lacey Township school community. Periera spoke with Senator Carmen Amato (R-9th), a co-sponsor of one of the bills, who acknowledged the “outpouring of requests for help” from Lacey, including a barrage of phone calls, letters, and emails.
Among the four individuals who joined Pereira in Trenton to testify on behalf of the legislation were two Lacey High School students, Giada D’Angelo and Logan Edgeworth. Giada and Logan persevered through a long day, waiting from 9:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. to deliver their passionate pleas.
“Although the bill passed to get us some of the funding back that we have lost, unfortunately, it doesn’t give us all that we need,” said Giada at a recent Board of Education meeting. “We need you, the Board of Education, to figure out how to fill the gap.”
Giada urged the school board to prioritize retaining teachers who made a positive impact. She emphasized the importance of providing students with a fulfilling high school experience, free from the anxiety of potentially losing their favorite teachers due to budget cuts.
Michael Ryan, executive officer of the Lacey Township Education Association, was also part of the contingency that went to Trenton and spoke at the school board meeting.
Ryan noted that 27 staff members were set to be cut while the district still faced a nearly $7 million shortfall. He acknowledged the opposition to the potential 9.9 percent tax increase and its possible “sticker shock” but sought to clarify what the increase would actually entail.
“The average $287,000 home could see a monthly increase of around $35 per month,” Ryan said. That’s about $420 annually.”
Ryan added that failing to take advantage of this opportunity would result in class sizes exceeding 40 students, pay-to-participate sports and extracurricular activities, the loss of courtesy busing to and from school, and cuts to special education programs.
School Board President Skip Peters expressed frustration at the disparities between districts, noting that nearby towns are boasting about new amenities like Jumbotrons, pickleball courts, and tennis courts. He questioned why Lacey faced such financial challenges and scrutiny, stating, “I don’t understand why Lacey is being picked on and what we did wrong.”
Peters added that he is fully committed to bringing everyone back, reducing class sizes, and reinstating all classes and trips. He maintains that students should always come first, and taxpayers, second.
Board member Linda Walker acknowledged that many taxpayers upset about potential tax increases are retirees or are on fixed incomes for other reasons.
“I’m one of those retired people who have a fixed income,” she said. “Do I want to see taxes raised? Of course not.”
“However, we’re here for the kids, and our kids deserve a great education as Lacey offers. They also deserve to have activities, sports, and whatever we can keep in place for them,” continued Walker. “Because that makes those kids keep focused and stay out of trouble because they’re busy doing what they’re doing here.”
Board member Jack Conaty said he was opposed to a 9.9 percent increase as a taxpayer. But, as the parent of kids being educated in the district, he saw the potential tax hike as a “no-brainer.” He said didn’t want his kids in 40-plus rooms and losing out on other things as a result of the budget deficit.
Richard A. Bidnick, a vocal community member, shared a letter he wrote to school board members on May 15, criticizing the legislation allowing the board to raise taxes beyond the 2 percent cap. He argued that the seven board members do not represent the majority of taxpayers who are struggling in the town.
“The idea of adding a 9.9 percent tax increase would be a horrific burden for many and would make our town a much less desirable place to move to,” Bidnick wrote. “It would increase inflation for many families and elderly residents who are struggling to keep their heads above water.”
Bidnick, a long-time critic of what he called the school district’s “poor results” and spending, stated that the district had been aware of the impending cuts for some time and should have begun downsizing six years ago when the reduction in state aid was first announced. He proposed that instead of leaving the decision to the board, a referendum should be held to allow voters to decide on exceeding the 2 percent cap.
The new legislation does not require the school board to seek voter approval to raise the cap for the upcoming school year.
